From Management Today
We often overestimate the potential for AI because it’s easy to imagine computers as smart as people. Science fiction is full of them. But it’s much harder to create such machines than to imagine them.
All of today’s most advanced AI programs are only capable of specialised intelligence —doing particular tasks like recognising faces, playing Jeopardy, or driving cars. But any normal human five-year old has far more general intelligence — the ability to learn and do many different tasks — than even the most advanced computers today. Experts on average predict that human-level artificial general intelligence is about 20 years in the future, but that’s what they’ve been predicting for the last 60 years.
On the other hand, we often underestimate the potential for using computers to provide hyperconnectivity — connecting people to other people (and machines) at massive scales and in rich new ways. In fact, it’s probably easier to create massively connected groups of people and computers (like the Internet and social networks) than to imagine what these ‘superminds’ will actually do.
Superminds – such as hierarchies, markets and communities – are composed of people and computers doing things together that neither can do alone. For example, superminds use machines to do complex calculations but people to decide which programmes to run in the first place and what to do when things go wrong.
In every past case where technology destroyed jobs, markets eventually created even more new jobs. For instance, in 1900, 41% of the US workforce was employed in agriculture. By 2000, it was only 2%. But it would have been very hard in 1900 to even imagine many of today’s jobs.
Is it possible that this time will be different — that the jobs eliminated by artificial intelligence will never be replaced? Yes, it’s theoretically possible. But I think the burden of proof is extremely high for anyone who argues that the outcome this time will be different from all the other times technologies have eliminated jobs throughout history.
For instance, the printing press destroyed jobs for scribes but created many new jobs in the publishing industry. In the same way, Google’s search service reduced some of the needs for reference librarians, but it created new jobs in the online search industry, including software developers, advertising salespeople and search-engine optimisation specialists.
In the legal world, if machines can do the routine parts of legal research more cheaply than law-firm associates do today, then we will probably do more legal research, and even more human attorneys may need to apply general intelligence to decide how to use the results. Similar possibilities exist in almost all industries from generating parts of corporate strategic plans, to making predictions about geopolitical or business events, to writing pieces of text that require general intelligence or interpersonal skills.
But even if enough new jobs are eventually created to replace the jobs that are destroyed, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to worry about. We still need to help workers who lose their jobs but aren’t able to do the new ones.
Read the full post at Management Today.
Thomas Malone is the Patrick J. McGovern (1959) Professor of Management at the MIT Sloan School of Management and the founding director of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.